Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-xfs); Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:10:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (host-65-120-145-91.coremetrics.com [65.120.145.91] (may be forged)) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id h8NG9sFx021382 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:09:54 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8NG7uvB001984; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:07:56 -0500 Received: (from austin@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h8NG7uiQ001982; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:07:56 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: austin set sender to austin@coremetrics.com using -f Subject: Re: Read performance issues with 2.6.0test5? From: Austin Gonyou To: Frank Hellmann Cc: freemyer-ml@NorcrossGroup.com, XFS List In-Reply-To: <3F70417E.2050304@opticalart.de> References: <3F70417E.2050304@opticalart.de> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Coremetrics, Inc. Message-Id: <1064333276.1939.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:07:56 -0500 X-archive-position: 508 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: austin@coremetrics.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-xfs Content-Length: 1863 Lines: 54 On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 07:50, Frank Hellmann wrote: > Hi! > > Good suggestion and guess what? Performance is bad on the raw device > as > well. So it is not an XFS issue... I thought this is what you might see. I'd suggest *not* using MD in the manner you are, and just letting the Infortrend Controller do the striping. It will be better for you. If you have the updated firmware 3.31T(I think), then you should be able to even chain them together and do a raid 0 or raid 1 across trays. I've spoken to our current vendor about doing this should we get another one. Anyway, I'd also suggest checking your frame size and your Qlogic config setting for modules.conf using the SANSurfer software. Hope this helps and good luck. I'd like if you could, to keep me posted off-list about your testing. I'm highly interested in where this turns for you. > Sorry for the wrong guess... > > Cheers, > Frank... > > Greg Freemyer wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 12:37, Austin Gonyou wrote: > > > > > >>I agree that these results are odd. Something is amiss here, but > there > >>really are many parts to remove before signifying one or the other. > You > >>could always format that MD volume you made as EXT3 or Reiser and > >>perform the same test. > >> > > > > If the filesystem is of no value, you could also do you dd to the > raw MD > > volume. > > > > If that has similar problems then you can forget about xfs as the > > bottleneck. > > > > Greg > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Frank Hellmann Optical Art GmbH Waterloohain 7a > Digital Cinema http://www.opticalart.de 22769 Hamburg > frank@opticalart.de Tel: ++49 40 5111051 Fax: ++49 40 > 43169199 -- Austin Gonyou Coremetrics, Inc.